Thumbs down?

[fischersd]

Heh, really, not being negative. There are people that do post inane or offensive things and it would be handy to have a thumbs down for these posts.

Maybe it could be like comment areas on newspaper sites, where if you get too many thumbs down it's hidden, with the comment in its place of "this post has been hidden due to its negative nature"?

Down the road, you could also put in alerts for the mods that say "hmm...this person has over 5000 negative marks on them...maybe we should look at what they're doing and ban their ass"

p.s. Why did we lose the "thread starter" indicator? It was handy to be able to tell which posts were from the OP. (yes, getting lazy and not creating another thread)

 

[ardchoille50]

Heh, really, not being negative. There are people that do post inane or offensive things and it would be handy to have a thumbs down for these posts.

Maybe it could be like comment areas on newspaper sites, where if you get too many thumbs down it's hidden, with the comment in its place of "this post has been hidden due to its negative nature"?

Down the road, you could also put in alerts for the mods that say "hmm...this person has over 5000 negative marks on them...maybe we should look at what they're doing and ban their ass"

p.s. Why did we lose the "thread starter" indicator? It was handy to be able to tell which posts were from the OP. (yes, getting lazy and not creating another thread)

Thumbs down systems are typically abused as a means of revenge. Being that a thumbs down vote is nothing more than an opinion, I would like to see all posts, regardless of votes, because my opinion may differ and the post in question may have what I feel is valuable content. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

My vote on a thumbs down system: nay (see what I did there?)

 

[jbachandouris]

I disagree. Sometimes I disagree with a post and if I respond with words, I may get carried away and be placed in time out. The down vote allows me to voice my displeasure safely.

Revenge? Seriously?

 

[ardchoille50]

I disagree. Sometimes I disagree with a post and if I respond with words, I may get carried away and be placed in time out. The down vote allows me to voice my displeasure safely.

Revenge? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. I have served as admin on forums in the past and have watched as one user seeks revenge for something another user did. The vengeful user contacted his buddies on the forum, they got together and downvoted the post. Never underestimate the power of people in large numbers.

 

[fischersd]

Luckily, most people here don't have that many buddies, so that won't happen.

This is why we have moderators - that can interpret.

 

[ardchoille50]

Luckily, most people here don't have that many buddies..

And you know this.. how, exactly?

.. so that won't happen.

Famous last words.

This is why we have moderators - that can interpret.

I don't think it's fair to the staff for us to simply assume that they can handle more work.

 

[rhp2424]

There are people that do post inane or offensive things and it would be handy to have a thumbs down for these posts.

For what it is worth, there is the "report" option for offensive posts.

 

[Gwendolini]

Hasn't this been talked about already ad nausea? The down vote button was used properly in most cases, but there were also cases, where it has been abused, and that often led to off-topic discussions about that.
If you cannot be bothered to voice your opinion in a thoughtful manner, why voice it when you cannot do that at that time? That down voting behaviour only contributes to not thinking about perspectives clearly and leads to aggressiveness.

I know, the up voting might seem a little too dreamy eyed, but it gets rid of those +1 posts. I haven't seen that many -1 posts on many message boards, not even on YouTube.

 

[C DM]

I disagree. Sometimes I disagree with a post and if I respond with words, I may get carried away and be placed in time out. The down vote allows me to voice my displeasure safely.

Revenge? Seriously?

Don't get carried away if you choose to reply. Or simply report the post.

 

[miamialley]

What's the reason for removing the down vote? You don't want people to post responses that only say they disagree, but take away how they can do that most easily without posting in the thread at all? It really makes no sense. Users are only allowed to like a post, as if disagreeing or not liking a post is frowned upon?

 

[GlenK]

I'm a member of a sports forum that has voting and it has positive and negative ratings. All that happens is people that don't even post go through there and give negative ratings constantly. They post nothing to say why they disagree or don't like posts..

If someone doesn't like or disagree with a post then quote it and say so.

 

[C DM]

What's the reason for removing the down vote? You don't want people to post responses that only say they disagree, but take away how they can do that most easily without posting in the thread at all? It really makes no sense. Users are only allowed to like a post, as if disagreeing or not liking a post is frowned upon?

When was down voting has been here last even that it was removed?

 

[Sydde]

If you bring back down-voting, it should, as up-voting is now, not be anonymous.

 

[C DM]

If you bring back down-voting, it should, as up-voting is now, not be anonymous.

Bring back from what? Is this in reference to what might have been there ages ago?

 

[Sydde]

Bring back from what? Is this in reference to what might have been there ages ago?

When they first put in voting, for quite a while there was a down-arrow. It was all anonymous, you could never tell who was voting which way or how many votes there were, just the single sum.

 

[miamialley]

I'm a member of a sports forum that has voting and it has positive and negative ratings. All that happens is people that don't even post go through there and give negative ratings constantly. They post nothing to say why they disagree or don't like posts..

If someone doesn't like or disagree with a post then quote it and say so.

I and others do that, only to get the posts removed because they violate stupid forum rules for short/frivolous posts.

 

[C DM]

I and others do that, only to get the posts removed because they violate stupid forum rules for short/frivolous posts.

Perhaps they should put some thought into their posts then rather than posting something pointless?

 

[miamialley]

Perhaps they should put some thought into their posts then rather than posting something pointless?

You don't want the down vote button, then don't use it.

 

[C DM]

You don't want the down vote button, then don't use it.

Except it affects things in general even for those that don't use it. In any case, the point is that there hasn't been a down vote button for some time, with some reasoning, and it doesn't look like it has come back or the reasoning has really changed just because the forums got redesigned due to an upgrade essentially.

 

[ardchoille50]

If you bring back down-voting, it should, as up-voting is now, not be anonymous.

Another vote for this. I dislike down-vote systems, they end up being misused as a method of revenge. However, if a down-vote system is implemented, make it mimic the "Like" system in that names are publicly shown. This will help reduce incidents where some users follow others around and down-vote every post they make (yes, this does happen).

 

[C DM]

Another vote for this. I dislike down-vote systems, they end up being misused as a method of revenge. However, if a down-vote system is implemented, make it mimic the "Like" system in that names are publicly shown. This will help reduce incidents where some users follow others around and down-vote every post they make (yes, this does happen).

Down voting though doesn't really say much. Great, you disagree, but the important thing is why. When you up vote that means you agree with or like what is said, it doesn't really need much of an explanation as it speaks for itself essentially, but that isn't the case with down voting, which seems like a fairly rational reason (or one of them) for not having it.

 

[ardchoille50]

Down vote though doesn't really say much. Great, you disagree, but the important thing is why. When you up vote that means you agree or like what is said, it doesn't really need much of an explanation as it speaks for itself essentially, but that isn't the case with down voting, which seems like a fairly rational reason (or one of them) for not having it.

I agree completely. Your point is further evidence that down-vote systems are counterproductive.

 

[grahamperrin]

Is downvoting on again? (2012-12-05) – concluded after two years:

… beating a dead horse … discussion has long been settled …

Readers can add their thumbs to that earlier beating.

(I stopped watching here; nothing beyond this point will gain a thumbs-up.)

 

[Sydde]

Down voting though doesn't really say much. Great, you disagree, but the important thing is why.

Then the obvious solution would be a down-vote-pop-up that would require you to make a selection from options like "offensive", "inane", "incorrect", "stupid" and maybe 2 or 3 others, which would be reflected publicly as "Phnurg, L1011b: incorrect post" or something like that. Then maybe a collapse-post function for 25+ in one category.

 

[C DM]

Then the obvious solution would be a down-vote-pop-up that would require you to make a selection from options like "offensive", "inane", "incorrect", "stupid" and maybe 2 or 3 others, which would be reflected publicly as "Phnurg says this is incorrect" or something like that

Most of those seem to be related to what a post should actually be reported for instead of downvoted. As reporting a post for most of those things is the better option it should be taken instead of having the option to downvote it and likely not report it as well.

The only one that doesn't quite fit would be along the lines of "incorrect" in which case you would hope someone points out why something is incorrect and actually provide correct information then. In which case, again, downvoting would lead someone to omit that and make for a poorer discussion because of it in most instances (as incorrect information wouldn't be specifically pointed out and corrected).